Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 26, 2013 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT

5:30 pm
minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. >> okay. when the building permit was issued mr. smith told us that yes, there were two doors that exited out to the public property, but that he had nothing to do with other than just approving the fact that they were doors, and nick said that it is all up to me and up to the dpw people to put something near those doors. number one. number two. since i got my master's degree at the university of wisconsin in philosophy, the last century i have longed to be able to use the phrase (inaudible), what nick elsner is doing to the logical fallacy. and that stairway that exists now, is illegal. and to make it the basis for a legal stairway is logically i believe incorrect. for the dpw to rely on the
5:31 pm
building plan that says that there can be two doorways here and to authorize the use of a creation of one public stairway and public... there is a public exit at the bottom of the property, if you go out of the door down there, and near core bit street, you are right on to the beginning of the walkway, of the public stairway. and if you go out the other designed door, you have got a private stairway where people who are wandering up and down the street can hide where the people who are being pursued by the law enforcement will not be seen and putting more lighting there will not help the creation of a safety problem on our block. the bottom line is there is no basis for this stairway in the other one which was illegal and it is still illegal. and he is going to tear down the entire property. and it will all be gone, including i hope the illegal stairway. we start from scratch with this building permit. please don't let them continue
5:32 pm
with this mistake that because it is there now, it deserves to have another one. this man has more entrance places than any other house on the block. and he has entrances on two streets. and could have designed in the fact, tom will tell you had he had the time that he went and saw the architect and the architect said that i could redesign it, it is not a problem. to have city property, my property and your property given away to this man because it is a convenience for him, he has never in a hearing stated there was a necessary, the hearing officer never found a necessity and if you would like send it back to hearing and have that question answered so you can answer the question based on the facts that have been gathered by the dpw and the question was never asked because everyone aassumed that it was all public access stairway. >> mr. auto.
5:33 pm
>> okay. once again, this is a two-minute property now, not a single family home, the entrance on the lower side is a new entrance and it takes up two steps of the public or the public stairway to go up two steps into the house. that is how much i am going to pay tax on for the lower unit. the upper unit or the existing stairway is, and i would like to comment on what is legal and what is not legal. if the whole city of san francisco fell down tomorrow, my architect told me less than five percent of it could be rebuild without a special permit. in other words, there ar stairways all over that were built at some point that are existing that can be rebuilt in a legal way and in a permitted way. and in good manners, and so, but they are concerned about that my access to the property and my access to the property exists now, and i want it to
5:34 pm
exist in the future. and everything that i am doing otherwise, is generous and it is a good total solution for the project. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, john the department of public works. and i was listening to providing information and also from both the appellant and the permitty, and i would need to provide the clarification to the board specifically. the location of 75 mars, applied for a building permit in 2010. building permit number 2010, 06, 1545, 12, to renovate the existing unit garage and vertical and horizontal additions and a dwelling unit. this went through the building
5:35 pm
department in june of 2010 and the or the planning department provided 311 notification in october and a request for review as to the design of the building itself. which showed the second point of egress, the discretionary review went through in november, october, of 2010, and the planning department upheld the design based upon that requirement, and they, the applicant came to the department of public works and applied for a minor encroachment permit. and i believe that for the department, for the public works, we reviewed the technical merits of the permit and not necessarily what happened before as it relates to the entitlement, it appears that the appellant and the property owner are now back to this work are arguing over the entitlement portion of it that is why i want to clarify for the board and appears to the
5:36 pm
department. we believe from making it stated clearly, we followed the process as it relates to the minor encroachment permit and notification was provided and objections were heard and made to approve the permit based upon the approval of the building department and the planning department. and it is up for appeal based on that approval from the department. i am here to answer any questions that you guys may have. >> i have a question, so the stairs have evidently been there since several owners, the private use stairs that are public. >> to clarify, there was one set of stairs initially, i believe it was along mars? >> the access mars. and okay, there was a door as suggested that was on the side of the building. okay? and what happened is they would get access through this door to the public right-of-way currently it leads to the landscape area in that corner
5:37 pm
sliver that the appellant is suggesting, and that they are maintaining however, since based upon the application of the department and shows this egress point that the department is obligated to provide somehow, and egress in the public right-of-way and not necessarily in that area. >> that was my question. it was regarding that sense the door has been there in some type of stairs have been there for quite a while, does that create some type of legal easement? >> there are no legal easements, they will have to issue a minor encroachment permit to the property owner, declaring that it is something to construct out of right-of-way and it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain and be liable for it. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you.
5:38 pm
>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> this is an interesting design problem. i do have to say just for to correct the record i believe that the permit holder misstated how many steps come from the new stairs and actually four or five steps and not two. however, that is not the issue, the issue here is two-fold. one is if you provide a public access across a fairly steep site and it needs a certain amount of run and therefore what you see is a curve solution that increases the length of the potential run to be able to get down. and there were additional options that they could have had, he could have interrupted the larger run on that stair
5:39 pm
and then created to what had original in the permit holder opinion illegal stair. but the effective issue however, is also addressed, if you make a relatively long run to have a legal conforming stair and you are doing it artistickly that varies in width, if you buy into that, proposal, then you are going to have a left over piece of land and it could be some type of planning and so there was a combination of things and i
5:40 pm
don't know why they came to this specific design. and the new stair that goes down alongside of the building could have been in the middle. >> however, you know, the fact that i have to, look at it in terms of the permit holder willing to do all of this work on the public private way that adds the significant amenities to the neighborhood, and you know i think that he is deserves something. and therefore, at this point, i am supportive of the enroachment. as currently constituted. >> i am in agreement with commissioner fung, i think that although the permit holder is getting some value, out of the public right-of-way here, even if he is bringing more value to
5:41 pm
the neighborhood, and if you are looking at these plans it is a good cost to the permit holder so that this neighborhood could have some enjoyingment from looking at the pictures that were in the briefs and no man's land and so i too am in favor of permit holder. >> and i am actually in principle in disagreement with the use of public property for private enjoyment. and the value added by the additional work that the permit holder would do is going to be returned to him in the increased value of his own property. for those reasons i would be disenclined to up hold the permit. but i will be out voted here.
5:42 pm
>> there is a motion. commissioner? >> sure, i will make a motion. >> i will vote that i moved to up hold the permit deny the appeal. on the basis that it was properly issued for the reasons stated in the mr. dpw's brief. >> okay and commissioner hurtado, perhaps we could reference the pdw order as part of the basis. >> thank you. >> dpw order 181, 284. >> okay. >> othis will be on the basis of for the reasons stated in the dpw briefs and the order. >> yes. >> thank you. >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny this appeal and up hold the
5:43 pm
sidewalk encroachment permit on the basis that it was properly issued and also for the reasons as stated in the dpw's brief. and the original dpw order. >> on that motion, to up hold, commissioner fung. >> aye. >> hwang. >> no. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. >> aye >> 4 to 1 and the permit is upheld on that basis, thank you. >> we are going to take a short break until 7:00. >> welcome back to the june 17, 2013, of the san francisco board of appeals. and we are calling 9 a and 9 b which shall be heard together. that appeal 13-064 and 065.
5:44 pm
3930-3940 judah street. protesting the issuance on may 16, 2013, to other avenues food store, parklet permit (50' long parklet consisting of slip resistant and accessible reclaimed wood deck with planter boxes, bike racks, wooden benches and tables for use by general public). permit no. 13pkt-0044. for hearing today.3930-3940 judah street. protesting the issuance on may 16, 2013, to other avenues food store, street improvement permit (construct one parklet). permit no. 13ie-0298. for hearing today. (10) appeal no. 13. >> matter is on for hearing, these matters are on for hearing today and we can start with the appellant. we will have a total of 14 minutes to present your case if you care to use it because there are two matters that are being heard together. you are not required to use it all. >> good afternoon. i recon that it is good evening now. my name is james telliher i am
5:45 pm
the owner of delicious juice in san francisco and i would like to thank the board for considering the matter before them. according to the 2011, 2012, dpw annual report, parklets turned unused pavement and parking into green areas. these public spaces allow residents and business customers to relax and enjoy the atmosphere of the city primarily in areas where open space or urban parks are lacking. and the neighborhood is located two blocks, two blocks from golden gate park and about five blocks from ocean beach. and we have become like, a new found destination and kind of
5:46 pm
the rest knows that we exist out there right now. and you know, spaces, is hard to come by, you know, and in both of our pavement and parking are highly utilized. and in our access to open space does not lack. we have experienced an increase in vehicular traffic and parking is at a premium. with no public parking lots, or garages available, customers and residents in the immediate area circle the neighborhood in search of a parking space. and lack of parking is a discouragement to local business. because many of our customers drive and it is reasonable that they may soon associate the area with lack of parking and will choose to avoid the area in favor of other neighborhoods.
5:47 pm
parking has already been diminished by the introduction of two parklets in addition to two spaces allocated to the city car share. in their brief, other avenues, food star mentioned the potential for increasing business as a result of parklet installation. our local business are mostly food service oriented and we lack the commercial diversity that the other neighborhoods afford. with little for people to explore in the way of retail, and entertainment, oriented establishments like you know, galleries, we lack theaters and boutiques and it is more or less of a stop and shop, sit and eat or grab and go type of business corridor. we do not experience the
5:48 pm
pedestrian hustle and bustle of commercially diverse neighborhoods even though on true beach days which are... they are kind of rare, visitors patronize local business and you know on the way to or the way from either the park or the beach, daily, however, we do have the comings and going of locals coming in on scale boards and walking and riding near bicycles and working folk and the guys driving out in just your average coming out to get something to eat or... get some groceries. and people who purpose to patronize our businesses out on outer judah. over the last nine years, i
5:49 pm
have enjoyed a friendly relationship with other avenues, food store, but i firmly believe that there is no need for the construction of a third parklet. the addition of a third parklet on judah street would not as a whole benefit the commercial interests of the microbusiness in the area. additionally removing viable parking space further challenges families with kids. older adults, with gate and moebility problems and the people with disabilities. you know, visitors in the neighborhood residents alike. throughout this process, i have been kind of disappointed with the transparency of the matter before us. and of our neighbors on judah street i was one of the only
5:50 pm
businesses notified of intent to apply for a parklet permit in spring of 2012. as a result, the neighborhood businesses and the residents in our businesses or our basically, you know, the sole proprier one guy running his little business and we were not able to adequately nor they, are able to adequately represent themselves or their perspectives at the may second 2012, hearing. today many of those business owners are present at this hearing and we have letters and you have names up this and others are here to offer the
5:51 pm
testimony as well. this owner who hosts a parklet at trouble coffee, previously supported the parklet at 3930, and 40 juda and she has since submitted a letter stating that she now opposes the approved parklet. and if i may take the opportunity to display some photos? >> can you hear me here?
5:52 pm
>> all right. the names that you will see highlighted in the green and the following pages, they are, you know, businesses that contest the parklet as well. but this is on judah street looking west on judah between 45th and 46th avenues. and you can see right about here it is a little bit hard to see, but as a pedestrian island and on the entire north side of the block between 45th and 46th, there is room for two vehicles and there is a vehicle here and a driveway. and there is room for one more vehicle in the fire hydrant and there are 45th avenue. this is at the opposite end of
5:53 pm
the spectrum. this is the south side of the judah street between 33 and 34rd avenue and the parking is available for vehicles. just out of view here is that the other pedestrian island like the one that you saw at 46th and judah. >> and before you turn to the next photograph, what is in the yellow signs? i can't... >> these guys here? >> yeah. >> those are... and it is these are just locations of businesses and they are also in opposition. just... >> they oppose the park. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> >> okay. and this was taken on 45th
5:54 pm
avenue in there is a place on the corner called outer lands and they have a parklet and this was just taken by the side of the parklet looking at the south side of judah street between 44th and 45th avenues. and in the there is a station and in front of the van and in that is the... that vehicle is legally parked. and the next vehicle that is legally parked is there is a gray pickup truck up here and i know that it is difficult to see. but as you can see, out in this neighborhood, and we are talking right now, an area between 43rd and 46th avenue and you can see exactly there is not a lot of space that is available for parking. in this area here, this was used to be a mechanics shop in the epa and they have done what
5:55 pm
they need to do on the tanks and that and i guess that the place will have to sit for a while. excuse me? >> the place has to sit for, i think that it is like two years or something and i am not sure where they are in that process before something can be done with this lot. and i guess that it was supposed to be like an apartment building with some good offers business. and retail space underneath, you know? and but right now people do park here and as you can see and there is nobody is using it and you don't get, you know you won't get a ticket right now because you know it is kind of a vacant lot waiting. so, but, there will be a time and there has been a time and you know, in the recent past when this was not available. you know? and then in my next photo, this
5:56 pm
is just a delivery truck double parked and it is in front of other avenues and it could have easily been in front of beach burrito and i am not saying it, and you know, other avenues or but if you would know, and the lines next to this delivery truck and this is a tailgated truck and so it is a relatively good sized truck and the lack of available parking here in the proximity of the train tracks and meaning the end mines, one of muni's most heavily traveled lines. and the rigidty of the trains and it is not like in other neighborhoods where you have muni buses or the ones on the guide wires and that, that are able to navigate the city
5:57 pm
streets. you know, they are kind of rigid and i have seen that it is often times a real tight squeeze going through that muni has to creep by and they are watching their mirrors and the mirrors on the truck and other times they have to you know, the driver just has to like lift up the tailgate and move that thing and come around and try it again because muni can't get by. these pictures are just to show that there is a lack of parking in our neighborhood. and one would assume in the other sunset that... and it would be pretty available and you know, in our corridor it is not. and we have two parklets and one is at trouble coffee which is approximately mid block and
5:58 pm
judah street between 45th and 46th avenues. and then, you know, just right up at the corner at 45th and judah. and there is one at cafe and on 45th avenue. and you know, other avenues and when i put one in. and less than a block that is the third parklet going in and like i say, we do, we are tight on space in here. and in that i had no idea that i would use 14 minutes worth of time. and i am glad that i had it because i don't think that i would gotten off the first graph. but i rest with that. >> thank you.
5:59 pm
>> sorry. >> we can hear from the permit holder now who has 14 minutes as well. >> hello. good evening commissioners and thank you for hearing our case here. my name is wane riders and i am the president of upper avenues food store cooperative. and we thank the board for hearing us and the directors and supporters for being here including joe selinski who is from the restaurant who will be sharing the park with us and i should make note that at the may 2 hearing that other avenues representatives came and spoke and there was no one else here and no opposition but the opposition and members of the opposition came later and spoke on their own. and we, you know there was no
6:00 pm
rebuttal process or rely process. and so i am glad that we have a chance here to have some back and forth. >> i just want to note that kind of through the design and permit process we have received hundreds of signatures in support of this and 80 or so letters of support and a number of them from nearby business owners and civil organizations as well as large organizations such as the sf bike coalition and walk sf. therefore we have come to see and understand why it is spread and public support on the north side of judah and this fueled our continued pursuit of it. and between the support and the studies showing that the parklets are good for the communities and effect them positively and have positive or neutral effects on commerce, we have reason to believe that it is good for the neighborhood and alines for a community and business renaissance that is happening in that area in recent years. >> hello, i am jb, one of the owners of other avenues, i do have some plans and i am not sure if they are ente
left
right